郑州低度近视是多少度(郑州郑州视献医院) (今日更新中)

Robots are the latest in technology working to reduce the risk of COVID-19 at airports.A robot, called the "Breezy One," just started working at the Albuquerque International Sunport. It operates autonomously and can decontaminate a 100,000 square foot space in about 90 minutes.“We're working closely with chemical manufacturers who have created very effective and very safe chemicals that have been rigorously tested,” said Kimberly Corbitt from Build with Robots.“It's providing even a protective layer throughout the day, which is pretty exciting when you think about the robot leaving behind a protective layer that really helps people stay safe in these environments,” said Melonee Wise with Fetch Robotics.The robot's creators say the disinfectant it uses is registered by the Environmental Protection Agency, and has been tested and approved by multiple government agencies.The City of Albuquerque’s Director of Aviation, Nyika Allen, hopes the robots eases some concerns about flying.“Here with robots, we actually have the whole facility mapped out and we can see what it’s done, what it hasn't done, how long it took the robot and so we're actually able to guarantee the customer and the passenger that these spaces that they're touching in the airport are getting disinfected on a nightly basis,” said Allen.Allen says the custodians have been part of the process of bringing on the robot, and that it's not replacing any of them. Instead, it's making their job safer and letting them focus on other tasks.The robot's creators are in talks now to place them inside a large factory in the U.S. that's currently disinfecting there by hand.The Pittsburgh International Airport is another airport that recently started using a robot to clean. It's also autonomous but utilizes UV lights retrofitted on the airport's existing floor scrubbers.And in Grand Rapids, an autonomous robot that sprays FDA approved disinfectant is joining the airport there.Something else we're seeing more of now with the mask requirements for air travelers are vending machines for personal protective equipment in the airport. The machines were recently added in the Denver and Las Vegas airports.The future of travel is also expected to be more touchless. So, expect to see more solutions going forward where you don't have to physically exchange anything at the airport. 2366

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to charge California water customers up to per month to help clean up contaminated water in low-income and rural areas.His plan will face resistance from some Democrats hesitant to impose new taxes.Up to 1 million Californians are estimated to have some type of contaminated or unclean water coming through their taps that can cause health issues.RELATED: California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes state funds to help migrant families at borderNewsom has called it a "moral disgrace and a medical emergency."He wants to impose new fees on water customers and animal and dairy farms to pay for public water improvements.It's nearly identical to a measure that failed last session.A competing proposal by Democratic Sen. Anna Caballero would use money from the state's multibillion-dollar surplus to create a trust fund to pay for water improvements. 906

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California's health care system is in the throes of a coronavirus crisis stemming from ill-advised Thanksgiving gatherings.Top executives from California's largest hospital systems put out a "clarion and desperate call" for residents to avoid a holiday repeat they said would overwhelm the most populous state's medical system.Increasingly exhausted staff, many pressed into service outside their normal duties, are now attending to virus patients stacked up in hallways, conference rooms, even a gift shop.Officials from Kaiser Permanente, Dignity Health and Sutter Health offered what they called a "prescription" for Californians to slow the virus spread, a marketing effort dubbed "Don't share your air." 743

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Democratic governor signed a law Tuesday requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, a move aimed squarely at Republican President Donald Trump.But even if the law withstands a likely legal challenge, Trump could avoid the requirements by choosing not to compete in California's primary. With no credible GOP challenger at this point, he likely won't need California's delegates to win the Republican nomination.While aimed at Trump, the law also applies to candidates for governor. Newsom said California's status as one of the world's largest economies gives it "a special responsibility" to require tax returns from its prospective elected officials."These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence," Newsom wrote in his signing statement.The Trump campaign called the bill "unconstitutional," saying there were good reasons why California's former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar proposal last year."What's next, five years of health records?" said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign.The courts will likely have the final say. The bill's author, Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, said lawmakers made sure the law only applies to the state's primary ballot because the state Constitution says the state Legislature does not control access to the general election ballot.Newsom's message to state lawmakers on Tuesday said the law is constitutional because "the United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen."But Murtaugh said the law violates First Amendment right of association "since California can't tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election."While states have authority over how candidates can access the ballot, the U.S. Constitution lays out a limited set of qualifications someone needs to meet to run for president, said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California-Irvine School of Law. Those qualifications include the requirement that presidential candidates be over age 35.The U.S. Supreme court has previously stopped state efforts to add requirements on congressional candidates through ballot access rules.New York has passed a law giving congressional committees access to Trump's state tax returns. But efforts to pry loose his tax returns have floundered in other states. California's first attempt to do so failed in 2017 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed the law, raising questions about its constitutionality and where it would lead next.The major Democratic 2020 contenders have already released tax returns for roughly the past decade. Trump has bucked decades of precedent by refusing to release his. Tax returns show income, charitable giving and business dealings, all of which Democratic state lawmakers say voters are entitled to know about.California's new law will require candidates to submit tax returns for the most recent five years to California's Secretary of State at least 98 days before the primary. They will then be posed online for the public to view, with certain personal information redacted.California is holding next year's primary on March 3, known as Super Tuesday because the high number of state's with nominating contests that day.Democratic Sen. Mike McGuire of Healdsburg said it would be "inconsistent" with past practice for Trump to forego the primary ballot and "ignore the most popular and vote-rich state in the nation."Republican Party of California chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said Newsom signing the law shows Democratic leaders in the state continue "to put partisan politics first," urging Democrats to instead join Republicans "in seeking ways to reduce the cost of living, help our schools and make our streets safer." 4061

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634

来源：资阳报